[sparrow] Add sparrow

[jjerphan]

• Changes comply with the maintainer guide.
• The name of the port matches an existing name for this component on https://repology.org/ if possible, and/or is strongly associated with that component on search engines.
• Optional dependencies are resolved in exactly one way. For example, if the component is built with CMake, all find_package calls are REQUIRED, are satisfied by vcpkg.json's declared dependencies, or disabled with CMAKE_DISABLE_FIND_PACKAGE_Xxx.
• The versioning scheme in vcpkg.json matches what upstream says.
• The license declaration in vcpkg.json matches what upstream says.
• The installed as the "copyright" file matches what upstream says.
• The source code of the component installed comes from an authoritative source.
• The generated "usage text" is accurate. See adding-usage for context.
• The version database is fixed by rerunning ./vcpkg x-add-version --all and committing the result.
• Only one version is in the new port's versions file.
• Only one version is added to each modified port's versions file.

[MonicaLiu0311]

The usage test passed on x64-windows (header files found):

sparrow is header-only and can be used from CMake via:

    find_path(SPARROW_INCLUDE_DIRS "sparrow/buffer.hpp")
    target_include_directories(main PRIVATE ${SPARROW_INCLUDE_DIRS})

[jjerphan]

Thank you, @MonicaLiu0311.

[BillyONeal]

• The name of the port matches an existing name for this component on https://repology.org/ if possible, and/or is strongly associated with that component on search engines.

This does not seem to be correct. This project is not associated with sparrow on repology, and first search results point to https://github.com/ropas/sparrow , not https://github.com/xtensor-stack/sparrow .

Would you accept xtensor-stack-sparrow ?

[jjerphan]

x-sparrow would work for us as the ownership might be shared beyond the xtensor-stack's organization.

[JohanMabille]

The thing is that sparrow will be transfered to the man-group org when it's more stable. Would man-group-sparrow be acceptable?

[BillyONeal]

The thing is that sparrow will be transfered to the man-group org when it's more stable. Would man-group-sparrow be acceptable?

Can't we just rename the port if/when that happens?

[jjerphan]

Does renaming the port makes the old name available again? If so, could name this port xtensor-stack-sparrow for now, and rename it when xtensor-stack/sparrow becomes man-group/sparrow? Alternatively, let's keep this PR open to check we don't break the build until the transfer.

[BillyONeal]

Does renaming the port makes the old name available again?

No, in general people would have to update their references. But they'd have to do that referencing the github repo in the first place.

[jjerphan]

Hello @BillyONeal,

The project has been transferred to another organization, and this PR is now ready for another review. 🙂

[BillyONeal]

The naming concern remains. Would you accept man-group-sparrow to follow the [github organization]-[repo] convention?

[jjerphan]

Can we actually reconsider sparrow as a name since https://github.com/ropas/sparrow is a small, unmaintained OCAML project?

[SylvainCorlay]

I would love this to be named sparrow. It would save us the trouble of having to tell people to use a different name on vcpkg.

[BillyONeal]

The problem with the name sparrow is again, not in repology, and search hits lead to

• ropas/sparrow
• Sparrow-lang/sparrow

which are not this.

[BillyONeal]

@AugP
@ras0219-msft
@data-queue
@JavierMatosD
and I discussed this today.

We affirm what we said back in March, there's too much potential for confusion and we want the name to be man-group-sparrow.

[MonicaLiu0311]

Ping @jjerphan